Climate model finally produces meaningful results

In a shock result, a new climate model produced results that make sense. The new CCFAFM* model shows that future projected temperatures are closely tied to financial and political forcings. Unlike other climate models, the awkwardly titled CCFAFM was not coupled with oceanic or terrestrial carbon cycle simulations, but with money and politics. The model studied the flow of finance and found a quasi-linear relationship with Climate-Fear.

The NCT team concludes:

…the unbalanced outward radiation of taxpayer money, will very likely cause dangerous cooling of family finances.

We homogenized, adjusted and used liberally unprincipled component method**, too sophisticated for non-climate scientists to understand, and produced a new set of hockey sticks, giving a very robust prediction (>90% likelihood) that we are all being totally screwed (right).

A solution to the climate-financial cycle is apparent from the model

Currently information flow is unidirectional from the UN and governments to the population, so if the flow in information is reversed, potentially, tax funds will return to the people.

Unfortunately a more likely scenario is that she will buckle to industry pressure and give more sweeteners to the EITE’s (Energy Intensive Trade Exposed) industries along the lines of the mining tax deal struck with the big three miners last year.

The real danger is that such a deal is struck on CO2 and industry resistance to the pointless tax fades away leaving householders to shoulder the burden once again.

This is the time to be vigilant because Joooolya is desperately low in the polls and need a win.

The information feedbacks are very likely to be strongly positive – but the $ loops display strong self-attenuating signals. Almost as though the green energy schemes feed more on dollars than on wind and sunlight…

Notice how in that, er, wonderful flow chart, there is no mention of Renewable Power.
It’s amazing how we were told that placing a cost on the emissions of CO2 was going to drive the move to more use of renewable power.
Now they’ve seen how much money it’s going to generate, there, er, seems to be other more important uses for that money.
No matter really, because renewables just cannot replace the levels of power required absolutely on a 24/7/365 basis.

Renewables Fail To Deliver provides analysis showing that the two most favoured forms of renewable power, Wind and Solar fail miserably when it comes to providing that electrical power.
Wind delivers its power for only 6 to 7 hours a day at the absolute best, while Solar can barely manage four hours a day.

The data may be from the U.S. but that data is almost real time for what is the most recent technology, where they are ramping up moves to renewables, and if it doesn’t work there, what makes people think it will work any better here in Australia.

If people believe this is the way of the future, they’ve got rocks in their heads.

2 May: SMH: Tom Arup: Independent carbon bank needed to oversee ETS
The Clean Energy Council will today release a discussion paper proposing the carbon bank, which it says could be allowed to borrow money to invest in renewable energy projects against the future revenue of Labor’s proposed carbon tax and emissions trading scheme…
The council’s paper suggests an independent carbon bank could:
- Set and change emissions reduction targets.
- Administer an emissions trading scheme.
- Allocate revenue from a carbon price and set industry compensation.
- Help fund clean technology projects which would not normally attract private investment.
Mr Warren said the independent carbon bank could also consolidate and better direct more than $6 billion on offer for renewable energy, energy efficiency and carbon capture and storage projects through government programs, funds and grants…
In the discussion paper, prepared with the help of the Boston Consulting Group, the Clean Energy Council says creating a bank that responds quickly to problems in carbon markets and clean energy investment ”will provide stability and clarity for business, along with fairness and efficiency in the allocation of revenues collected (from a carbon price)”.http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/independent-carbon-bank-needed-to-oversee-ets-20110501-1e37v.html#ixzz1LCnrHhlZ

i’ve wasted far too much time today looking for a single mention/placard about the “carbon tax” at any Union Labour Day march…not a peep!

It’s hard to laugh when you know that most of the research money goes into this thing called climate “science”. The politicians cannot throw enough of our money into this crap. When will the rest of the scientific community stand up and protest.

Due to the increased growth due to increased CO2 plants can now spend more energy producing toxins!! With higher CO2 certain plants will become inedible and due to higher CO2 they will produce less protein so cattle will require larger paddocks to produce the same amount of meat!

I think I’ve heard everything now!!

It appears this story was first discussed on The Science Show last year.

They are putting so much rubbish out there in the media that it has people’s heads spinning, which is possibly the whole idea. It’s a bombardment strategy. The only thing we can hope for is that people have, in the majority, now switched on the BS detectors, or have developed AFS – Apocalyptic Fatigue Syndrome (I recall a Quadrant article on this).

Hey wait a minute! You can’t put out a model like that. Its displaying real trends. You have to ‘Hide the Decline’ of Personal Freedom and Real Innovation lest you give the real game away. For ‘Personal Freedom’ substitute the Proxy data: ‘Increased Government Regulation’ and for ‘Real Innovation’ substitute the Proxy data: ‘Government Funded Program Stuff Ups’. There that’s better!

Janama, with higher CO2 the plants find it easier to make more carbohydrate, hence in some plants we expect higher Carb to protein ratios. It’s not that plants make less protein — as far as I know, it’s just a dilution factor. And it’s something that better soil quality might fix.

For those who are starving, more carbohydrate means more calories, means they live longer.

And that is the loop from Tata Corporation (actually Tata Group); to the Tata Environmental Research Institute (later changing the word “Tata”, to become The Environmental Research Institute); whose Director General also happens to be the Chairman of the IPCC, and also happens to be the Chairman of the Advisory Board of the Asia Development Bank; which is a major source of funding for the development of the Mundra Power Project, in India; that is being developed by Coastal Gujarat Power; which is a company owned by Tata Power; which is a division of Tata Group; which originally set up the Tata Environmental Research Institute whose Director General also happens to be the Chairman of the IPCC …

One other deficiency in the model. It does not project the precipitous fall off of the creation of new life giving, sustaining, and enhancing wealth that follows immediately after the decrease in freedom and rapid increase in taxes, corruption, and regulation. As governments try to take more and control more, there is less and less to take and to control. THAT is the real tipping point that is coming at us at almost light speed.

Soon, all that will need to happen is that last very highly leveraged product development engineer finally walks away in disgust. On that momentous occasion the whole house of fantasy and whim will collapse with a thunderous whimper: “we didn’t mean this to happen.” They did actually mean it or they would not have advocated and continued their failed policies for centuries.

“janama” (18),
Typical of the Lies and BS that we have come to expect from the Leftist Subversive abc (Australians Being Censored)……….

I’d like to invite the author of that Propaganda Crap article to dinner.
I would put an empty plate out for him with some Salt in the middle and give him a glass of Dihydrogen Moxoxide. As far as I can discover Salt and Water are the only things that a human can consume that do not contain carbon. My plate would be filled with Steak, Chicken and Seafood. They wouldn’t be able to complain as they regard carbon as pollution.

The increase in plant toxins due to increasing CO2 was featured in the ABC Catalyst program a couple of weeks ago predicting this effect in eucalypts on which koalas feed. This was based on one paper reporting the effect of doubling CO2 with some eucalypts, nothing in between, and not sure whether this applied to all variaties which koalas eat. The search indicated that this one result was quoted by several authors as established data. If I remember correctly, 800 ppm CO2 was used, which is unlikey to be reached.

I emailed my (Labor) MP in February concerned about their proposed carbon dioxide tax and its likely effect on me as a self-funded retiree, the PM’s unequivocal pre-election promise not to introduce one and demanding that they include it in their platform for the next election (if they think fit).

I recently receive a mailed reply, which looked like a standard form-letter, containing the usual flannel inter alia, it’s the government’s plan “to cut pollution[sic], tackle climate change [sic] and deliver the economic reform [sic] Australia needs to move to a clean energy [sic] future” (and not “risk being left behind”). It’s childish to argue that our economic suicide will be followed by our trading partners and competitors.

As we all know, CO2 is not “pollution”, even if CO2 was the main climate driver nothing Australia does unilaterally can have any effect, we certainly need tax reform to make us more productive and competitive but a CO2 tax will have the opposite effect and there is no such thing as ‘clean’ or ‘dirty’ energy.

Particularly galling was the suggestion that “businesses need certainty” — businesses would have thought they had certainty with the promise “there will be no ‘carbon’ tax ….” etc. — any uncertainty is of the government’s making.
Taxes can be imposed and taxes can be revoked.

The government’s rationale is so irrational and idiotic (evocative of ‘the gig lie’, newspeak and doublethink): espousing ‘clean’ energy (at the same time banning nuclear), claiming “every cent” will be returned to households (what’s the point then?), claiming only the “big polluters [sic]” will pay (when the ‘big polluters” are mainly the power generators using our cheap and plentiful coal resource which is exported for use abroad but is to be phased out here and they will pass-on the extra cost to consumers anyway).

The government’s proposed CO2 tax (and ultimate ETS) is a cynical exercise exploiting our desire to be good citizens etc. while achieving nothing but raising extra revenue and giving it unprecedented control over our lives, which I guess was the tacit rational all along.

I take it “Climate Change Actions Projections” are global averages. In Europe “it’s worse than we thought” and you will need a bigger graph. In the UK alone the “Corruption and rent seeking” line would extend all the way onto someone else’s web site.

Colin at 41 – can you tell us who was the bigger warmists – NDP or Liberals?

Interesting that the Liberals lost so many seats and the NDP becomes the new opposition. Kind of like what happened in Britain with the Liberal Democrats and Labour. I wonder if this is the start of a new trend of left-vote fracturing as it starts to split down traditional ‘worker rights’ and intellectual-leftyism.

Coming to this conversation a little late but …. the chart is a great representation of the true and concealed aims of the AGW string pullers except for me does not quite capture one of the main drivers which makes the scam so appealing to a social(ist) democrat like Gillard (or Obama). The big $ inflows to national govt (after industry and taxpayers are weaned off compensation) will fund growth of public and welfare sectors to a point where it becomes impossible to be elected opposing ‘big’ government. Gillard would be a Labor hero for the ages and she knows it.

about the tight link between CO2 emissions and GDP and about the threats to democracy from alarmism. On Friday, he talks in Perth, and then in 4-5 other cities ending by Brisband and/or Coolum Beach on August 1st and/or 2nd.

The tickets – of order $180 – are extremely expensive, partly because all expenses etc. including the commercial flights are paid for by the organizers of the talks. Klaus isn’t taking his wife and this Australian tour is the closest thing he has to some vacations this Summer.